You just sidestepped it again John.
You have been premising from the start, that banning immigrants who are poor & unskilled is a useful restriction.
You say this in complete defiance of the fact that Poor & Unskilled defines the vast majority of immigration America has received in every age to include now.
In Every age, most of our immigrants were poor & unskilled. You have acknowledged this John.
Yet, your point is, not that we should test for unproductive habits, not that we should look into their personal histories to find behavioral problems, not that we should scrutinize credit history to find if they are debtors looking for asylum.
But simply that we should ban them, for being Poor & Unskilled. That those things, in of themselves, should result in you being banned from coming here.
That is the category I question. That is what we did not have in the past.
Between 1890 and 1920, 20-25 million immigrants came here. They were Poor and Unskilled. We did not ban people for being Poor & Unskilled.
We tested for personal defects, we did not ban them for being Poor & Unskilled.
That’s the difference, you want to ban people for circumstance. Not their personal qualities, but their lack of wealth, and lack of training.
It’s not the same John. It was never the same. Even poor people can be productive, that’s why you don’t ban them for being poor. Unskilled can become skilled, that’s why you don’t ban them either.
These are temporary states that people can fix. That’s why we didn’t ban people for them.
Because in the early 20th century, we acknowledged human potential, and that liberty is something that gives people the ability to bring it forth.